Public Inquiries: Enchancing Public Trust (Statutory Inquiries Committee Report)

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Friday 25th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the Statutory Inquiries Committee, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, who introduced this debate, has done parliamentarians, the Government and the public a great service through this excellent report, and I commend it on that.

It is a fitting review, 20 years after the Inquiries Act 2005, of how and whether the system is working. I normally refrain from self-congratulation about how wonderful the House of Lords is—and I had no involvement in this report—but I think this report is an exemplary example of what a second Chamber can, and does, do: deploying wisdom, experience and expertise to consider important matters of public policy.

One of the themes that most resonates with me is that of reinventing the wheel: losing sight of previous experience, conclusions and actions by failing to have a record or register of lessons learned or best practice. This report’s concern for reducing costs and delays in new inquiries by learning from previous ones is entirely justified, since the suffering of victims, families and survivors is simply prolonged not only by procrastination in setting up an inquiry but by unnecessarily extended timeframes and failure to implement recommendations.

When I was a local councillor 30 years ago in the 1990s, I would rage against the lack of corporate memory. For instance, when the power failed in a 23-storey housing block, was there an emergency generator and, if so, where was it? The local council neighbourhood office had no plans or records. Thank heavens there were a few elderly tenants around who had lived there since it was built in the 1960s, and we were able to get the lift put back on, which was crucial. Ever since, I have hated haphazard reliance on a few personal recollections in place of the rigorous central record-keeping and follow-up systems that ought to exist. I am therefore especially grateful for the very wise and important recommendations the committee has made about lessons learned, a bank of information and community of practice.

The report’s title includes the words “Enhancing public trust”, and that is the key issue. Pollsters regularly report findings of loss of trust in politicians but, while some individuals undoubtedly behave badly, I think it is more about loss of trust in governance and institutions, with promises broken, pledges unfulfilled, mistakes repeated and long delays in recognition of harms caused, let alone any accountability for failure, redress or compensation.

We have had all too many examples of failures to deliver adequate or timely accountability, redress or restitution. When inquiries lead to real change or justice—like the Hillsborough inquiry, which overturned decades of cover-ups—public faith can grow. Conversely, if recommendations are ignored or the process feels like a stalling tactic or kicking the issue into the long grass, cynicism festers. The Post Office scandal, on which we had a debate two months ago, is outrageously still dragging on because the Post Office and Government have failed to deliver fair compensation, despite an interim report on that topic nearly two years ago from inquiry chairman Sir Wyn Williams.

Public disillusion and loss of trust are very damaging to maintenance of our liberal democracy. I think the core proposals of this report, for a new joint parliamentary Select Committee—a parliamentary inquiries committee—to undertake formal implementation monitoring, and an accompanying beefing up of the Inquiries Unit in the Cabinet Office to share best practice and learn from past inquiries, are vital.

In my experience, although the victims, survivors and family members who have experienced failings, mistakes, incompetence and disasters certainly want accountability—and, if appropriate, apologies, redress and compensation—they have an overwhelming altruistic desire to try to make sure that no one else suffers the agonies that they have suffered. The content of this report, which is possibly slightly dry on the surface, is about individuals and personal suffering. Trust depends on how independent, transparent and effective each inquiry proves to be. We can aspire to a better system, and this report, if implemented, would make a big contribution to achieving that ambition.